The last time a LEO checked a weapon of mine he was disrespectful with it. Tossing it on it's side across the hard case, not on the foam, on the hard plastic.

I was pissed and made it known that the guy was a donkey and to be careful with my ****! Still pissed about it.

So, why would I want another donkey touching any gun I own?

All they're doing is rousting you to the full extent they can, not because they think you are a person that is doing illegal stuff but because they want to intimidate the public. They want you to be scared, they want you to think you can't get away with anything because officer Fife is on the job.

If everyone just rolls over they will get worse and worse about violating your rights. You can be one that just takes it in the rear or you can be one of the few the politely assert your rights. The more people that assert their rights the less time they have to hassle everyone. Then, and only then will things work better for everyone.

See how that works, just be polite, assert your rights and there is no way they can hassle every car that comes down the road. I'll gladly get hassled if it means we can work to a better understanding between us and them.

The less people that stand up, the worse it gets. Makes me mad at the ones that give it all away so they can "be on their way", home for supper on time, ya know. Spineless.

If your have your guns with you and you know they are legal to own and have with you, I would just say yes let him check them out and let him be on his way, if you have a gun with you and you say no, and he ends up searching your car or truck, you just lied to a fish and game warden or police or CHP depending on who pulled you over, if your not breaking the law its always better to be honest then to cause trouble, I always go point A to B when I have a firearm in my car, never any stops in between.

You are very welcome to do this if you want in your car. However, many people have been arrested for having a perfectly legal firearm that an officer didn't believe was. Some have been arrested twice for the same firearm hence the law suit against the California AW bill. To think you are safe simply because you "know" it's legal is naive at best. What they don't know won't hurt you.

__________________

Quote:

Tomís right, and the right of any other citizen, to arm himself should not be subject to approval by a civil servant who will not be present to protect them.

Wardens and all LEO can lie to you, If you don't know your rights then you will have to do as they ask.

You always have to do as they say, even if it appears unlawful. However, anything that was obtained or discovered through an unlawful order will not be admissible in court. Any unlawful action also opens up agency for a lawsuit.

The rule of thumb is that if an LEO has a PC/RS to do something, he will never ask for permission and just issue an order. If they have to ask, they are actively seeking for consent and you have the right not to give it. The primary way to enforce your right is only to withhold this consent or communication altogether, never not to follow direct orders.

You always have to do as they say, even if it appears unlawful. However, anything that was obtained or discovered through an unlawful order will not be admissible in court. Any unlawful action also opens up agency for a lawsuit.

The rule of thumb is that if an LEO has a PC/RS to do something, he will never ask for permission and just issue an order. If they have to ask, they are actively seeking for consent and you have the right not to give it. The primary way to enforce your right is only to withhold this consent or communication altogether, never not to follow direct orders.

No you don't. You don't even have to show them ID in this state. You most certainly have options. LOL! You don't even have to talk to them even if they demand you to do so.

No you don't. You don't even have to show them ID in this state. You most certainly have options. LOL! You don't even have to talk to them even if they demand you to do so.

There was a recent ruling that residents cannot resist police even during an illegal entry, the reasoning being that there is an available recourse through the court system. I believe it was in Indiana and that it was the state Supreme Court (not federal).

I did a quick search and couldn't find similar case/ruling for CA, so you might be right that you can choose NOT TO obey a direct order form an LEO. Also, the above ruling was about entering a residence, not just any order so I am not sure anymore.

However, remember that what you think is illegal and what the LEO thinks is illegal are two different things, and one of you two has the benefit of qualified immunity should he make a mistake, while the other can end up with the resisting arrest felony.

At this point it would be good to hear from some of the legal experts on this forum what one can and cannot do when confronted with a direct order from an LEO, e.g., being ordered to step outside the car, or being ordered to keep one's hands on the steering wheel.

There was a recent ruling that residents cannot resist police even during an illegal entry, the reasoning being that there is an available recourse through the court system. I believe it was in Indiana and that it was the state Supreme Court (not federal).

I did a quick search and couldn't find similar case/ruling for CA, so you might be right that you can choose NOT TO obey a direct order form an LEO. Also, the above ruling was about entering a residence, not just any order so I am not sure anymore.

However, remember that what you think is illegal and what the LEO thinks is illegal are two different things, and one of you two has the benefit of qualified immunity should he make a mistake, while the other can end up with the resisting arrest felony.

At this point it would be good to hear from some of the legal experts on this forum what one can and cannot do when confronted with a direct order from an LEO, e.g., being ordered to step outside the car, or being ordered to keep one's hands on the steering wheel.

Orders given for officer safety are a separate issue from the OP of this thread regarding fish and game checkpoints and how they ca or can't legally operate.

How can you tell whether it's "for safety" or just "illegal?" Terry stop is a type of gray area search that would be illegal to resist, even though it's a search without consent and without PR/RS.

Fish and game checkpoints are designed to allow hunters the opportunity to have their deer tags validated. In order to be searched you have to tell them you were engaged in the sport take of game, they need to see you doing it or painfully obvious you were doing it. Equipment ect.

The long and the short of it is, you only have rights you can afford to defend. It can cost a few grand and a night or so in the pokey, months of anticipation and pre trial fun, followed by a dismissal the night before court (in effect fining you)

If the risk/reward works for you, hey, I'm all for it. Easy for me to say though since I'm not the one that has to consider paying the consequences.

If your have your guns with you and you know they are legal to own and have with you, I would just say yes let him check them out and let him be on his way, if you have a gun with you and you say no, and he ends up searching your car or truck, you just lied to a fish and game warden or police or CHP depending on who pulled you over, if your not breaking the law its always better to be honest then to cause trouble, I always go point A to B when I have a firearm in my car, never any stops in between.

...should we also simply bend over every time we are asked??

you know you have a right to make all the stops you want with a firearm in the car, correct?

You always have to do as they say, even if it appears unlawful. However, anything that was obtained or discovered through an unlawful order will not be admissible in court. Any unlawful action also opens up agency for a lawsuit.

The rule of thumb is that if an LEO has a PC/RS to do something, he will never ask for permission and just issue an order.If they have to ask, they are actively seeking for consent and you have the right not to give it. The primary way to enforce your right is only to withhold this consent or communication altogether, never not to follow direct orders.

Very very Bad and dangerous information you posted.

LE will almost always ask for permission first whether they have PC or not. This is because the majority of people give permission for a search - even when they are doing something illegal (just watch any number of cop shows to see this in action).

So, since many people give permission, they try that route first. That way, they don't have to worry about artculating PC in court if its challenged (especially since it can be a stretch in some cases). You can't challenge giving permission if you freely choose to give it.

So, after you say no, and they think they can articulate PC if they find something, they will then search anyway.

They may still even search on just a hunch, with the idea that if they find an contraband (stolen gun, drugs, etc.), at the very least they ruined your day and got the illegal stuff off the street even if they lost the PC challenge later in court.

Or, they may decide they don't need another complaint in their jacket and end the fishing expedition right after it becomes apparent that you won't budge on giving permission.

Things they will consider in deciding how far they will go -

Circumstances.

If there is a bunch of crap going on, like responding to a cal
, you look like you just killed your parents, etc., (and it's not just a general fishing expedition)....they are more likely to search anyway.

Who they are dealing with.

If they run you in their database and you have a laundry list of past legal issues, you may have a problem. If you have prior negative contacts with LE like being a dickhead for little or no reason(and they know about it from notes in their database or from prior personal contact), you may have a problem.

And finally, if your a dickhead or disrespectful, etc., during the current contact, you may have a problem.

As has been said before, if you choose to exercise your rights to the fullest, that is your choice, and there is nothing wrong with that. But antagonizing the "offending" officer(s) by being a jerk has absolutely zero benefit for you whatsoever.

LEOs are just as human as you are. They also have limited immunity. So even though at might make you feel better being a *** because you can, odds are it will be much more painful for you in some form then it is for him/her....be it at that time or in the future.

I was with other rigs and just wanted to get home so I said yes and had to dig it out of the bottom of my jeep behind the driver seat. My ammo box had rifle ammo in it but they never asked if I had a rifle.

Interestingly, the officer made a comment regarding my transportation of ammo and handgun. While I did have my ammo and gun in separate locked containers, the officer was adamant that it was law to have them that way and they could not be in the same container. I suggested he check the CHP website.

Frankly, the point that ticked me the most was they had me unload nearly everything from my jeep ( stuff in rear in tie downs, assorted camping boxes etc.. ) looking for fish. I said to him do you want to see my license and the response was " Only if we find some fish".

__________________
"The Right Of The People To
Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed"

You always have to do as they say, even if it appears unlawful. However, anything that was obtained or discovered through an unlawful order will not be admissible in court. Any unlawful action also opens up agency for a lawsuit.

The rule of thumb is that if an LEO has a PC/RS to do something, he will never ask for permission and just issue an order. If they have to ask, they are actively seeking for consent and you have the right not to give it. The primary way to enforce your right is only to withhold this consent or communication altogether, never not to follow direct orders.

This is WRONG on so many levels!

You do not have to do as they say! A cop can tell you to hop on one leg and sing the star spangled banner. Guess what... you do not have to do it!

When I was in the military I followed orders from officers and enlisted people above me in the rank structure. As a Citizen and a Civilian I follow the LAW. Cops don't get to make up laws. They only enforce them. I don't folow their orders.

Those requirements or demands only apply to the vehicle code if you are actually the driver of the vehicle.

This would again assume that you can guarantee that the issue is a violation of the vehicle code. The LEO might think differently when he issues the order and not tell you.

To get to the point, what would you consider a good scenario where you would disobey a direct order by an LEO? We are discussing at least somewhat plausible scenarios, not along the lines of "singing and dancing." Also, I am assuming that the order happens after you have withdrawn any consent and have stopped/are done talking.

This is a genuine question since it tends to be a source of a lot of confusion, much like the infinite threads about how to answer "do you have any weapons in the car."

This would again assume that you can guarantee that the issue is a violation of the vehicle code. The LEO might think differently when he issues the order and not tell you.

To get to the point, what would you consider a good scenario where you would disobey a direct order by an LEO? We are discussing at least somewhat plausible scenarios, not along the lines of "singing and dancing." Also, I am assuming that the order happens after you have withdrawn any consent and have stopped/are done talking.

This is a genuine question since it tends to be a source of a lot of confusion, much like the infinite threads about how to answer "do you have any weapons in the car."

The only way an LEO can stop you in a vehicle is for violation or perceived violation of the vehicle code. However minor. No blinker, light out ect.

NO YOU DON't!! F&G codes only apply to those who are participating in the activity. F&G codes do not apply to those not hunting or fishing. If you are driving home from a trip either hunting or fishing, You don't have to tell them squat! They must have proof or knowledge of your activity in order to continue their shake down powers. Not to mention, since when was the "right to remain silent" ever made illegal??

So, does that mean that the 150 yard from any occupied dwelling, barn, ect ect for discharging a firearm does not apply to target shooting??????? I ask because the 150 yard rule is a F&G code. I ask because now you have me wondering.

If your have your guns with you and you know they are legal to own and have with you, I would just say yes let him check them out and let him be on his way, if you have a gun with you and you say no, and he ends up searching your car or truck, you just lied to a fish and game warden or police or CHP depending on who pulled you over, if your not breaking the law its always better to be honest then to cause trouble, I always go point A to B when I have a firearm in my car, never any stops in between.

So, does that mean that the 150 yard from any occupied dwelling, barn, ect ect for discharging a firearm does not apply to target shooting??????? I ask because the 150 yard rule is a F&G code. I ask because now you have me wondering.

The 150 yard F&G rule does not apply to target shooting. HOWEVER, counties may or may not have laws pertaining to where you can or can't shoot so you may want to check locally first.

How does the AV courthouse (Palmdale) get a 98% conviction rate? Are they that good? Are the cops right 98% of the time?

Do you know what "over file" means. I do.

Does that answer your "I wonder"?

Bingo. Pick you battles wisely. There are many reasons to assert your rights on a traffic stop or a check point, but the best reason not to is...it's not worth it. You can very easily wind up looking at felony convictions for doing nothing wrong or illegal.

This would again assume that you can guarantee that the issue is a violation of the vehicle code. The LEO might think differently when he issues the order and not tell you.

To get to the point, what would you consider a good scenario where you would disobey a direct order by an LEO? We are discussing at least somewhat plausible scenarios, not along the lines of "singing and dancing." Also, I am assuming that the order happens after you have withdrawn any consent and have stopped/are done talking.

This is a genuine question since it tends to be a source of a lot of confusion, much like the infinite threads about how to answer "do you have any weapons in the car."

Here is a good one:

A cop tells you to stop video taping or recording them while they conduct their offical duties in public. That is one demand/order that a citizen often gets from the police and should almost always refuse to follow!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doheny

Fail.

If you're a passenger in a stopped car and the officer tells you to get out (or do anything else), you don't think you need to?

Your lack of undestanding applies to not only the F&G code, but the CVC as well.

And you aren't totally right either.

A passenger does not have to comply with all request/orders from a cop like the driver does. For instance, a passenger does not have to provide ID.

If you're a passenger in a stopped car and the officer tells you to get out (or do anything else), you don't think you need to?

Your lack of undestanding applies to not only the F&G code, but the CVC as well.

I understand the F&G code pretty well FWIW.

Does a passenger need to exit the vehicle upon demand? YES! For either officer safety or probable cause giving them the ability to search. That does not mean the passenger needs to identify themselves, talk to LE, or if they want, can simply walk away if they are not being detained or arrested for a crime.